The judgment established that to prove the offence under Section 304B of the IPC, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. Additionally, the judgment clarified that an accused can be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC even without a specific charge under that section, if the ingredients of the offence are proved.

JUDGMENT :

N. Anil Kumar, J.

1. This is a case of dowry death. The important question before us is whether Anilkumar @ Kannan (the appellant) was rightly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam of having committed an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').

2. Background facts in brief are as follows:-

Suryasmitha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to the appellant on 07.11.2006. Her husband, Anilkumar @ Kannan was arrayed as accused before the Sessions Court in connection with the death of the deceased-wife charging him with offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to PW2 who is the mother of the deceased and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years more. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

3. Suryasmitha, wife of the appellant committed suicide on 06.01.2007. The prosecution case is that the appellant had been continuously persecuting her with the demand for more dowry and at last she decided to commit suicide by hanging on a ceiling fan at the residence of the accused in Neendakara Village, Kollam District. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to Suryasmitha as dowry. Before the marriage, there was an understanding to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more. However, the amount was not paid as agreed at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the appellant was harassing the deceased all the while after the marriage for not bringing Rs. 1,00,000/- as part of the dowry and she was treated cruelly. The appellant also misappropriated the gold ornaments entrusted to him at the time of marriage. On 06.01.2007, PW1-her brother came to know that the deceased committed suicide leaving behind Ext. P2 suicide note. Consequently, PW1 lodged Ext. P1 FIS before the police. PW14, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered Ext. P11 FIR under Section 304B of the IPC. PW7-Dr. Geetha, while working as Assistant Professor and Deputy Police Surgeon at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased on 07.01.2007 and issued Ext. P5. In Ext. P5, PW7 opined that the postmortem findings are consistent with death due to hanging. There seems to be no dispute on the fact that Suryasmitha committed suicide by hanging herself on 06.01.2007.

4. PWs. 1 to 16 were examined and marked Exts. P1 to P16 on the prosecution side. Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the defence side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. He maintained that he had never demanded dowry from his wife-Suryasmitha. According to him, Suryasmitha had been suffering from various diseases before her marriage and had undergone treatment at the Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam. Her breast was operated twice before her marriage. He came to know about the operations only after the marriage. She told him that she was in need of Rs. 25,000/- more in connection with her treatment. However, she did not say the reasons therefor. He had earned his livelihood by conducting fishing on the high seas. She went home voluntarily in his absence. In support of his defence, DW1 was examined and marked Ext. D1.

5. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, held that there was sufficient evidence to show that Suryasmitha had been subjected to cruelty and harassment within seven years of marriage. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC.

6. Heard Sri. B. Bipin, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for